Verbal Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 So many things wrong with this Quite - not least the idea that the Christians were fighting barbarians - in which case, at that time, they would have been committing collective suicide! Anyway, back to DP's avoidance of any defence whatsoever of his claim about 'bad science'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 Over 90 years the average temperature will increase by 2C and maybe 5C. And during the next 90 years what other factors are there that could impact onto that scenario? Here is one - China's economic bubble bursts, the Yuan rises and the world can no longer afford cheap goodies. The Chinese factories will reduce their emissions (remember the build up to Beijing) Or maybe the Sunspot cycle will reduce the amount of radiation hitting the atmosphere? OK Let me try a different route. Emerging Markets pollute far more than the developed world (apart from maybe the Yanks) For every Carbon Offset you guys do, some factory in China pours more krap into the eco-system. An EXAMPLE of The British solution to global warming is to tax airport passengers. That (as I argued above) is stupid as those transit passengers fly using other routes. How about THIS as a better solution. Ban ALL imports from countries that continue to exploit cheap labour, build factories that cause FAR more environmental damage smog etc than the entire UK. Ban all trade and aid to countries that continue to destroy the one REAL solution to Greenhouse gas growth - The RAIN FORESTS. but oh no, you all drink your Brazilian coffee, buy your wooden furniture and your Gizmos. UK is making an effort but WHY does it have to be targetted at YOU. You have already learnt that you need to take care and recycle, but China? Parts of Belarus & Ukraine? Parts of Vietnam? The precious metals and rare earths being clawed from under forests in West africa or in China? No the answer is not to make the people raping and causing the greenhouse gases STOP, you idiots all SUPOORT it by buying new tablet & Smartphones! Jesus Phil where have you been? All that work has been done. In 2007 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced different scenarios based on exactly that - different levels of growth / carbon intensity /energy mix and efficiency / population etc. Thats why the possible spread - 1.5-6 degrees is so wide - it depends on what we do. 1.5 to 2 degrees is already locked in based on what we have already put into the atmosphere. Updated projections are being worked on currently. I think the new report is out in April 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 Quite - not least the idea that the Christians were fighting barbarians - in which case, at that time, they would have been committing collective suicide! Anyway, back to DP's avoidance of any defence whatsoever of his claim about 'bad science'... The word "barbarian" comes into English from Medieval Latin barbarinus, from Latin barbaria, from Latin barbarus, from the ancient Greek word βάρβαρος (bárbaros). The word is onomatopoeic, the bar-bar representing the impression of random hubbub produced by hearing a spoken language that one cannot understand, similar to blah blah and babble in modern English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 You're doing it again! Phil, I am personally sending you to the naughty step until you can provide evidence of what you call 'bad science'. You can't just run out, yell, 'bad science' and run away again. Spell out your qualifications for rubbishing the methodology of climate research, or quote those scientists, published in respected journals, who do and why. By the way, the clue that you have no scientific qualifications to make such a declaration of bad science is your bizarre claim that science, to be good, has to look at all the variables and from all possible ways. Actually, a lot of science proceeds in the opposite direction, by trying to isolate variables and study them. That, small step by small step, is how progress is made. It is the accumulation of these small steps that makes the results of climatology so worrying - aside from the evidence around the world of global warming. OK, so the Climate Research Department of the University of East Anglia employed Good Science to produce the report to the UN that empowered a great deal of the bandwagon jumping? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails And the response http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy It was normal practice. No that's fine but the first Telegraph article shows how this LIMITED data was then used and abused to drive the Climate Change bandwagon. Was it BAD Science? Well I argue it was. Lies damn lies and statistics is my view. I would have far more confidence in it IF it had been drawn from MORE research, more variables and inputs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 The word "barbarian" comes into English from Medieval Latin barbarinus, from Latin barbaria, from Latin barbarus, from the ancient Greek word βάρβαρος (bárbaros). The word is onomatopoeic, the bar-bar representing the impression of random hubbub produced by hearing a spoken language that one cannot understand, similar to blah blah and babble in modern English. Origins and meaning are not the same thing, and even you would know that. Your understanding of the history of the Crusades is clearly based on sweet FA - you do know that Saladin won, I hope. Anyway, back to Phil's bad science... Still waiting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 Jesus Phil where have you been? All that work has been done. In 2007 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced different scenarios based on exactly that - different levels of growth / carbon intensity /energy mix and efficiency / population etc. Thats why the possible spread - 1.5-6 degrees is so wide - it depends on what we do. 1.5 to 2 degrees is already locked in based on what we have already put into the atmosphere. Updated projections are being worked on currently. I think the new report is out in April 2011. So what will be more effective as a solution? Reduce the imports from Countries that continue to flaunt UN regulations by imposing Green Taxes on them? or Tax the UK population even more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 Origins and meaning are not the same thing, and even you would know that. The origin of the word is the meaning of the word in the context I used it. What do you interpret a Barbarian to be then clever clogs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 The origin of the word is the meaning of the word in the context I used it. What do you interpret a Barbarian to be then clever clogs? This is very funny. Now back to the thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 Anyone who like Phil doubts the science without having read it can get a good pulling together of all data here. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1 (Its written by 833 research grant driven scientists from 186 socialist countries around the world). The IPCC report is mentioned in the Telegraph Articles above. Bad Science or Bad Scientists? Yep I had read both sides. I also work locally with the UN on CER programmes, and we have carried out a great deal of research and work to get the Government down here to become aware of the harm of not just Greenhouse pollution but also the entire pollution caused by The capitalist System being fed by the Communist system with no thought for the future, and I have given papers and presentations on Green issues in Europe & over here. I fight the cause for the Planet, which means being VERY aware of how vested interests and Politicians and Business screw with us as humans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 The IPCC report is mentioned in the Telegraph Articles above. Bad Science or Bad Scientists? Yep I had read both sides. I also work locally with the UN on CER programmes, and we have carried out a great deal of research and work to get the Government down here to become aware of the harm of not just Greenhouse pollution but also the entire pollution caused by The capitalist System being fed by the Communist system with no thought for the future, and I have given papers and presentations on Green issues in Europe & over here. I fight the cause for the Planet, which means being VERY aware of how vested interests and Politicians and Business screw with us as humans I'm even more astonished then by your 'bad science' nonsense. PLEASE explain why the methodology of climatology is 'bad'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 So what will be more effective as a solution? Reduce the imports from Countries that continue to flaunt UN regulations by imposing Green Taxes on them? or Tax the UK population even more? The polluter pays is a good principle for a free market. There are early stage attempts to measure how much carbon is 'embedded' in producing each product and put a price on it. So a plastic toy produced by a manufacturer in Birmingham using electricity sourced from renewables and delivered to warehouses in London using hydrogen cell delivery trucks would have a lower level of embedded carbon that something flown in from a brown coal powered factory in China. The arguments between countries at the moment is how much each should control emissions and how much each should pay. Everyone agrees emissions need to be controlled and fast - but no-one wants to put themselves at a competetive disadvantage by going first or giving away too much too soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 This is very funny. Now back to the thread... It's alwaya amusing putting gobby left wing teenagers in their place.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 So, just to repeat the question once again dune, seeing as you have either missed it or, as I suspect, are avoiding it..... How do you reconcile David Cameron's commitment to reducing the CO2 output of the UK with your assertion that MMGW is a socialist conspiracy to raise taxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 So, just to repeat the question once again dune, seeing as you have either missed it or, as I suspect, are avoiding it..... How do you reconcile David Cameron's commitment to reducing the CO2 output of the UK with your assertion that MMGW is a socialist conspiracy to raise taxes? And can Phil PLEASE answer my bad science question? Why are the deniers all hiding under their beds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 So, just to repeat the question once again dune, seeing as you have either missed it or, as I suspect, are avoiding it..... How do you reconcile David Cameron's commitment to reducing the CO2 output of the UK with your assertion that MMGW is a socialist conspiracy to raise taxes? I have already stated I am a right wing Conservative/UKIP supporter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 I have already stated I am a right wing Conservative/UKIP supporter. No **** Sherlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landford.saint Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 There are only 2 real questions to this debate. 1. Is planet earth undergoing a period of increased global temperatures. 2. Does mankind have any 'real' influence on this phenonenum. 1. Yes. 2. Some scientists say YES ... some scientists say NO .... And some say I DONT KNOW. Whatever the answer alot of people are making alot of money promoting YES, and alot of Governments are raising taxes and screwing their votors on the back of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 I have already stated I am a right wing Conservative/UKIP supporter. But that doesn't even begin to answer the question. You insist that MMGW is a lie that is perpetuated as part of a socialist conspiracy to raise taxes. If this is true then why is it that David Cameron, who surely does not qualify for your definition of a socialist, is continuing with the previous government's commitment to reduce carbon emissions in the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 (edited) Origins and meaning are not the same thing, and even you would know that. Your understanding of the history of the Crusades is clearly based on sweet FA - you do know that Saladin won, I hope. Anyway, back to Phil's bad science... Still waiting Made doubly impressive by the fact he died in 1193 and the ninth (and final) crusade didn't end until 1272.............. Edited 22 December, 2010 by doddisalegend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 Made doubly impressive by the fact he died in 1193 at the ninth (and final) crusade didn't end until 1272.............. OK so we're on Crusader history now, are we? So tell me: was 1272 when they re-took the 'jewel in the crown' Jerusalem? As I said, Saladin won. Now Phil, if you don't answer the bad science question I will hunt you down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 OK so we're on Crusader history now, are we? So tell me: was 1272 when they re-took the 'jewel in the crown' Jerusalem? As I said, Saladin won. Now Phil, if you don't answer the bad science question I will hunt you down. Oh dear. Saladin at best got a draw. The ninth crusade would have a hard time capturing Jerusalem as they were in Tunisa and if anyone prospered from the crusades it was the Mamluks of Egypt who overthrew the Ayyubid regime of Saladin. Anyway this is well off track. Climate change is real, going "green" can't do any harm and might do some good so I don't see the problem, other than rich people might lose some money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 And can Phil PLEASE answer my bad science question? Why are the deniers all hiding under their beds? And will you please show me where I have DENIED Global Warming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 Oh, and as verbal did not bother to read the articles I posted to show my opinion that MORE factors need to be taken into account I put the headline up from one of them http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation So the worst scientific scandal of our generation does not count as bad science. Sorry I didn't want to use the word Bad Conspiracy. Again, this was about the people who's research was used to create the IPCC study that Buctoomim hides behind What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case. The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself. So. I am not a denier, I am nota Warmist and I am not a Freezist. I am someone who would like to know the FULL truth with ALL the facts and ALL the influences. I strongly believe that being a Role Model is important for the West in addressing ALL Environmental harm. But this focus only on CER in England and TAX the UK consumer and Industry so that it is at a disadvantage to the rest of the world - well that will cost JOBS and that is wrong. My stance is that EVERYONE should force change at the same time. You increase departure green tax - the French didn't. Also, sod the Carbon emissions how much damage is caused to the planet by all your Iphones and new flat screen TV's? The world cannot recycle OLD CRT tubes, the glass is polluted by the Lead so it gets dumped, either deep underground or in oil wells as lubricants - toxins are produced that will kill everyone FAR quicker than global warming every day. Climatology. Show me a Climatologist who would ignore the impact of Oceanography - El Nino. La Nina and Gulfstream, are they proof of Climate or proof of Ocean? Everything is interlinked. I was not debunking Climatology Verbal I was saying it should be taken as a part of the whole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 Thats a very confused post Phil. What does it mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 (edited) Oh, and as verbal did not bother to read the articles I posted to show my opinion that MORE factors need to be taken into account I put the headline up from one of them So the worst scientific scandal of our generation does not count as bad science. Sorry I didn't want to use the word Bad Conspiracy. Again, this was about the people who's research was used to create the IPCC study that Buctoomim hides behind So. I am not a denier, I am nota Warmist and I am not a Freezist. I am someone who would like to know the FULL truth with ALL the facts and ALL the influences. I strongly believe that being a Role Model is important for the West in addressing ALL Environmental harm. But this focus only on CER in England and TAX the UK consumer and Industry so that it is at a disadvantage to the rest of the world - well that will cost JOBS and that is wrong. My stance is that EVERYONE should force change at the same time. You increase departure green tax - the French didn't. Also, sod the Carbon emissions how much damage is caused to the planet by all your Iphones and new flat screen TV's? The world cannot recycle OLD CRT tubes, the glass is polluted by the Lead so it gets dumped, either deep underground or in oil wells as lubricants - toxins are produced that will kill everyone FAR quicker than global warming every day. Climatology. Show me a Climatologist who would ignore the impact of Oceanography - El Nino. La Nina and Gulfstream, are they proof of Climate or proof of Ocean? Everything is interlinked. I was not debunking Climatology Verbal I was saying it should be taken as a part of the whole As Tim say, WHAT?? But let me get this straight: your evidence for 'bad science' is an article by arch nutjob Christopher Brooker??!! In the immortal txtspk: FFS! You do realise that the CRU was cleared of scientific malpractice by an official investigation led by Lord Oxburgh (former chairman of Shell). Get a grip Phil, you're better than this. Edited 22 December, 2010 by Verbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 Thats a very confused post Phil. What does it mean? It is like the whole debate: very confused. And to agree... there is no known techonology to remove lead from the glass in old CRTs, although locking it up in glass is probably the safest way to dispose of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 And will you please show me where I have DENIED Global Warming? Answer the question!! Tell us how the methodology in climate science is 'bad' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 The CRT screen thing isnt accurate either. http://www.nulifeglass.com/uk-crt-tv-television-computer-screen-recycling-process/what-happens-to-your-crt-tv-computer-screen.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 Thats a very confused post Phil. What does it mean? I posted links to 3 articles questioning the people behind the IPCC research, It included The Gruaniad just to show political neutrality (but no I see niut job mentioned) The IPCC report is damaged by manipulation of the data and ignoring some data that was contradictory. My original point about Bad Science was that too much has been made of the IPCC report and that on it's own it is not a document that should be used to dictate the decisions on investment by busines and taxation by Governments. My point about the Environment is simple - the toxins in Electronics could kill us all as fast as global warming. The carbon used to get Rare Earths out the ground or processed for Gadgets & Gizmos far outweighs that which can be saved by a few light bulbs being turned off in the UK I tried to point out that I am very aware that Global Warming is the mantra but there are MANY other environmental issues that are causing harm and could change the planet - deforestation to grow crops you buy because it is cheaper or you want them. Pollution & harm of rivers and eco-systems (the gunk that broke into the Danube (was it) not so long ago. Verbal accused me of debunking Climatology, I do not. I say that there are many other factors that can affect the climate, but can somebody show me where they are actually included in the IPCC resreach? They aren't. Now I did (as you rightly point out) miss the IMHO summary. Global Warming was hijacked for many political and research funding ends, the core data was tainted (to kowtow to Verbal). It drives poilcy making. But it does NOt include all the possible variables Solar Fluctuations, deforestation. It only drives reduction. A Holistic Green approach is about understanding that MANY factors affect the Climate, and many factors affect the Environment. Focusing on only one area is wrong. Carbon Emissions COULD happily increase IF we had more forests to remove the Carbon. But increase output and do not have the means to extract it AND cut down all the trees? What about research into Carbon Capture, recycling and storage? Are the green taxes being levied on airline passengers going into this area - haha - that's as crazy an idea as the Brit Gov investing the carbon taxes in alternative energy research. Again, the leaked emails are showing what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/2744/ Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 The CRT screen thing isnt accurate either. http://www.nulifeglass.com/uk-crt-tv-television-computer-screen-recycling-process/what-happens-to-your-crt-tv-computer-screen.htm Wednseday 29th Septmeber 2010 An afternoon was devoted to the subject of CRT recysling at the E-Scrap Congress in New Orleans Speakers included Joe Clayton Synergy Recycling & WR3A; KC Schefski of the US Environmental Protection Agency, Simon Greer if Nulife Recycling, Dr Nelson Mossholder of ECS Refining. PM your email address & I can send you the powperpoints my friend. The cost of recycling a CRT is around 5 pounds. It produces the elctronics plastics & metals which can be used to offset the cost. The front glass screen can also be recovered. The issue is then the CRT which is coated with Lead. The backlog of stored Lead Cullet Glass will support the global demand for the next 20 or so years (that one was last year's powerpoint.) New technologies are emerging that will separate the glass at a Precious Metals refining plant. The capital costs is such that only a limited number of sites will have the capacity. In the EU WEEE & Rohs legislation now ensures the suppliers have to cover these refining costs, but that doesn't happen in ALL the US states and sure as heck is not implemented elsewhere in the world, all that lead from busted TV tubes goes the same way - back into the eco system. (Greenpeace do a great job on the damage of this stuff, it just doesn't get the same exposure as it is not about getting research funding. A good example is this article where a focus in ONE area limits the ability of improvement in another. http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/press-releases2/eu-countries-missing-opportuni Basically not enough consumers pay more for "Environmentally Friendly" solutions and poorly constructed and advised legislation actually HARMS people trying to bring out better solutions. holistic approach, include all angles, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 Phil. Science. Bad. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 I posted links to 3 articles questioning the people behind the IPCC research, It included The Gruaniad just to show political neutrality (but no I see niut job mentioned) The IPCC report is damaged by manipulation of the data and ignoring some data that was contradictory. My original point about Bad Science was that too much has been made of the IPCC report and that on it's own it is not a document that should be used to dictate the decisions on investment by busines and taxation by Governments. My point about the Environment is simple - the toxins in Electronics could kill us all as fast as global warming. The carbon used to get Rare Earths out the ground or processed for Gadgets & Gizmos far outweighs that which can be saved by a few light bulbs being turned off in the UK I tried to point out that I am very aware that Global Warming is the mantra but there are MANY other environmental issues that are causing harm and could change the planet - deforestation to grow crops you buy because it is cheaper or you want them. Pollution & harm of rivers and eco-systems (the gunk that broke into the Danube (was it) not so long ago. Verbal accused me of debunking Climatology, I do not. I say that there are many other factors that can affect the climate, but can somebody show me where they are actually included in the IPCC resreach? They aren't. Now I did (as you rightly point out) miss the IMHO summary. Global Warming was hijacked for many political and research funding ends, the core data was tainted (to kowtow to Verbal). It drives poilcy making. But it does NOt include all the possible variables Solar Fluctuations, deforestation. It only drives reduction. A Holistic Green approach is about understanding that MANY factors affect the Climate, and many factors affect the Environment. Focusing on only one area is wrong. Carbon Emissions COULD happily increase IF we had more forests to remove the Carbon. But increase output and do not have the means to extract it AND cut down all the trees? What about research into Carbon Capture, recycling and storage? Are the green taxes being levied on airline passengers going into this area - haha - that's as crazy an idea as the Brit Gov investing the carbon taxes in alternative energy research. Again, the leaked emails are showing What the East Anglian climate unit did was wrong and foolish. It was a relatively minor episode by two junior researchers. The IPCC report was published in 2007, 2 and a half years prior to this event. Using that event to cast douybt on the whole of climate science is like saying the Toyota accelerator pedal issue discredits cars as a form of transport. Your assertions about the IPCC not considering solar and deforestation are just plain wrong. At least have the decency to read the report before making claims about it. Yes other environmental issues are important too. No-one has said its either / or. There are a LOT of initiatives to protect remaining rainforest. The Brazilian goverment is quite good but has major problems with illegal logging. Indonesia is corrupt and allows clearance of virgin forest to grow palm oil whist claiming it is not. Best options is to buy wood products with the FSC logo and avoid palm oil if you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 Phil. Science. Bad. Why? Read his posts and stop being such a boring troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 Read his posts and stop being such a boring troll. I'm asking because I think Phil will eventually get around to a direct answer rather than tiptoeing round the fringes. If he were you (which no one should be, heaven forbid; you're 'unique'), I wouldn't bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 Read his posts and stop being such a boring troll. I think that has to be the most spectacular case of the pot calling the kettle black I have ever witnessed on an internet forum. Any chance of you answering my question BTW dune? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 I think that has to be the most spectacular case of the pot calling the kettle black I have ever witnessed on an internet forum. Any chance of you answering my question BTW dune? I've already answered it Rebecca. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 I posted links to 3 articles questioning the people behind the IPCC research, It included The Gruaniad just to show political neutrality (but no I see niut job mentioned) The IPCC report is damaged by manipulation of the data and ignoring some data that was contradictory. My original point about Bad Science was that too much has been made of the IPCC report and that on it's own it is not a document that should be used to dictate the decisions on investment by busines and taxation by Governments. My point about the Environment is simple - the toxins in Electronics could kill us all as fast as global warming. The carbon used to get Rare Earths out the ground or processed for Gadgets & Gizmos far outweighs that which can be saved by a few light bulbs being turned off in the UK I tried to point out that I am very aware that Global Warming is the mantra but there are MANY other environmental issues that are causing harm and could change the planet - deforestation to grow crops you buy because it is cheaper or you want them. Pollution & harm of rivers and eco-systems (the gunk that broke into the Danube (was it) not so long ago. Verbal accused me of debunking Climatology, I do not. I say that there are many other factors that can affect the climate, but can somebody show me where they are actually included in the IPCC resreach? They aren't. Now I did (as you rightly point out) miss the IMHO summary. Global Warming was hijacked for many political and research funding ends, the core data was tainted (to kowtow to Verbal). It drives poilcy making. But it does NOt include all the possible variables Solar Fluctuations, deforestation. It only drives reduction. A Holistic Green approach is about understanding that MANY factors affect the Climate, and many factors affect the Environment. Focusing on only one area is wrong. Carbon Emissions COULD happily increase IF we had more forests to remove the Carbon. But increase output and do not have the means to extract it AND cut down all the trees? What about research into Carbon Capture, recycling and storage? Are the green taxes being levied on airline passengers going into this area - haha - that's as crazy an idea as the Brit Gov investing the carbon taxes in alternative energy research. Again, the leaked emails are showing Again, this avoids addressing the issue. You were claiming that 'bad science' was intrinsic to the methods themselves - because scientists didn't look at the overall, or take into account 'all the variables'. This is such a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works that I really want to know how you can define it as 'bad'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 The CRT screen thing isnt accurate either. http://www.nulifeglass.com/uk-crt-tv-television-computer-screen-recycling-process/what-happens-to-your-crt-tv-computer-screen.htm The lead is still in the glass, it's just separated from the other materials. There's not much you can do with it after that, except perhaps mix it in road surfaces. Having said that, it's fairly stable in the glass and probably won't hurt anybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 Again, this avoids addressing the issue. You were claiming that 'bad science' was intrinsic to the methods themselves - because scientists didn't look at the overall, or take into account 'all the variables'. This is such a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works that I really want to know how you can define it as 'bad'. Much of this science is very simplistic. For example, for many years climate scientists ignored the effects of clouds because they did not know how to model them. Also, when they talk about 'solar activity' they only look at total solar irradiation and completely overlook the effects of high-energy particle streams which have a significant effect on cloud formation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 Climate change is real, going "green" can't do any harm and might do some good so I don't see the problem, other than rich people might lose some money. I suppose it could happen in theory but I believe that to be extremely unlikely. As always, it is the great unwashed who will pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 (edited) I've already answered it Rebecca. Me: How do you reconcile David Cameron's commitment to reducing the CO2 output of the UK with your assertion that MMGW is a socialist conspiracy to raise taxes? You: I am a right wing Conservative/UKIP supporter. So you think that constitutes a reasonable answer do you? It seems to me that there is no way you can answer it without making yourself look foolish, so you are deliberately avoiding it. Just my opinion of course Edited 22 December, 2010 by Sheaf Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 Much of this science is very simplistic. For example, for many years climate scientists ignored the effects of clouds because they did not know how to model them. Also, when they talk about 'solar activity' they only look at total solar irradiation and completely overlook the effects of high-energy particle streams which have a significant effect on cloud formation. And your scientific qualifications for such a pronouncement on high are? Please give examples from reputable journals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 (edited) Much of this science is very simplistic. For example, for many years climate scientists ignored the effects of clouds because they did not know how to model them. Also, when they talk about 'solar activity' they only look at total solar irradiation and completely overlook the effects of high-energy particle streams which have a significant effect on cloud formation. Its not ignored http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/clouds.html http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/clouds.php http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/antarctica/8068623/Telescope-buried-a-mile-under-the-Antarctic-ice-to-find-source-of-cosmic-rays.html Edited 22 December, 2010 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 And your scientific qualifications for such a pronouncement on high are? Please give examples from reputable journals As a Chartered Engineer with two degrees I feel that I have a working knowledge of may aspects that have been discussed here, certainly enough for me to comment on the validity of many of the scientific theories that have been proposed. What might your scientific qualifications be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 Its not ignored http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/clouds.html http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/clouds.php http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/antarctica/8068623/Telescope-buried-a-mile-under-the-Antarctic-ice-to-find-source-of-cosmic-rays.html No, not at all, but these analyses are more recent that the early 'scare-mongering' reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 It was so long ago the scientists were predicting... http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 As a Chartered Engineer with two degrees I feel that I have a working knowledge of may aspects that have been discussed here, certainly enough for me to comment on the validity of many of the scientific theories that have been proposed. What might your scientific qualifications be? Like you, I don't have any. That's rather my point. Unless you quote actual scientists, publishing in respected journals, it's all a bit too easy and really quite crap to say that climate science is 'bad science'. So to repeat my question: what is it about the methodology of climate science that renders it 'bad'? Phil won't answer, so maybe you will. As you see, I am ever hopeful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 No, not at all, but these analyses are more recent that the early 'scare-mongering' reports. Early climate science was bugged by inaccurate media reports. They would produce a range of scenarios but the media would focus on the dramatic high impact but low probability scenarios, ignoring the more sedate core projections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 It was so long ago the scientists were predicting... http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf Not that old chestnut. Global cooling was a decidedly minority view among scientists at the time, but was amped up by Newsweek and others as the scare of the week. Global warming, on the other hand, has been around for donkey's years. I remember going to a research station in Spitzbergen, in the Norwegian Arctic, where long range temperature fluctuations were being measured by an international consortium of arctic research institutions (including the Scott Polar Institute in Cambridge) This was in the late 1980s, and the global warming thesis was certainly taking hold then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 22 December, 2010 Share Posted 22 December, 2010 Not that old chestnut. Global cooling was a decidedly minority view among scientists at the time, but was amped up by Newsweek and others as the scare of the week. Global warming, on the other hand, has been around for donkey's years. I remember going to a research station in Spitzbergen, in the Norwegian Arctic, where long range temperature fluctuations were being measured by an international consortium of arctic research institutions (including the Scott Polar Institute in Cambridge) This was in the late 1980s, and the global warming thesis was certainly taking hold then. Some of us go back over 20 years before that. In the 1960's the next Ice Age was the big concern amongst the scientific community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now